POLL: Is Magic Science?

 etotheipi  writes:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
– Arthur C. Clarke

So, the short word "is" is in the short title. But I am asking in TTWG (and RPGs, if you want), do we treat magic like it is a science?

Fireballs have precise ranges and statistical damage distributions. Resistance to magic fire is based on well-defined categories of characteristics. You have logistic and infrastructure support … er … manna … to cast 2 level 3 spells or 3 level 2 spells.

Some of this is due to wanting to put them into a structured TTWG format. It's less so for RPGs, where the rules are interpreted subjectively (WRT the milieu and plot) by a referee, but it seems that magic is still very well statted out there as well.

There is the argument that if we wanted more "magic" magic, we would need overly complex rules. More than we already have. I think a lot of that could be easily overcome. While I acknowledge that I am in the minority when it comes to liking nomograms and slide rules, the idea of a magician pouring over obtuse diagrams and fiddling with strange artifacts is compelling to me.

I think that just overall, we want to subjugate magic to our will, so we want it to conform to our idea of scientific rigor. It's not a supernatural set of phenomena, just one that is outside most people's experience and span of control.

Maybe there are other options? Maybe there are scads of TTWG and RPG that don't treat magic like Jane's Necromancy, ones I don't know about?

Poll set up by  Editor in Chief Bill  , based on this pre-poll discussion.